REPUBLIC vs. AGYIRI ALIAS OTABIL [1982]DLHC2199

Date	1982-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC2199

TWUMASI J.

KOBINA ACQUAYE (CANN WITH HIM) FOR THE ACCUSED.

ASAFO-ADJEI SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1982]DLHC2199
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AGYIRI ALIAS OTABIL <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 251<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
26 FEBRUARY 1982<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KOBINA ACQUAYE (CANN WITH HIM) FOR THE ACCUSED. <o:p></o:p>

ASAFO-ADJEI, SENIOR ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>There is
a well established principle of law that a voluntary confession by an accused
person to the commission of the crime charged is sufficient to support
conviction of the accused: see Practice Note (State v. Aholo) [1961] G.L.R.
(Pt. II) 626, S.C.; R. v. Omokaro (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 146 and State v. Otchere
[1963] 2 G.L.R. 463, S.C. Therefore the onus lies on the prosecution to prove
that the confession statement was voluntary, in other words, the prosecution
must prove that there was no inducement by threat or duress or promise held out
to the accused by a person in authority, e.g. a police officer: see R. v.
Barimah (1945) 11 W.A.C.A. 49.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
instant case, the accused, like the accused in R. v. Bodom (1935) 2 W.A.C.A.
390, alleged that he was handcuffed and severely beaten by the police and
forced to make a confession by thumb-printing a written statement and that he
did not even know the contents of the statement. He showed to the court, scar
marks on his hand to convince the court that he was handcuffed and beaten. He
emphatically stated that there was no independent witness present when he was
forced to thumb-print the statement. The onus therefore shifted on the
prosecution who alleged that the accused made the statement voluntarily in the
presence of an independent civilian witness to substantiate their case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Unfortunately
the prosecution could neither call the independent witness to testify nor, at
least, tender a written statement of the independent witness. All they said was
that the independent witness had travelled to Monrovia according to reports
reaching them. In my opinion, a statement made by the independent witness to
the police on the matter could properly have been accepted by the court under
the provisions of section 118 of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since
this was not forthcoming the only conclusion open to the court was that the
prosecution had failed to discharge their burden of proof. The statement was
accordingly rejected on the ground, among other things, that the prosecution
had failed to prove that the accused was not beaten and forced to thumb-print a
fabricated confession statement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The law
as it was before the Evidence Decree, 1975, it should be remembered, made it
crystal clear that for the purpose of authenticating the authorship of a
confession statement, it was desirable, though not essential, for the police to
require an independent civilian witness to be present, witness and sign the
statement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
attitude of the courts had been to insist that where the accused was an
illiterate it was very important that an independent civilian witness be
present: see R. v. Grunshie (Abisa) (1955) 1 W.A.L.R. 36, W.A.C.A., but where
the accused could read and write and did in fact write his own statement the
absence of an independent civilian witness could be overlooked without
injustice: R. v. Adjei (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 544, C.A. Now by section 120 of NRCD
323 a confession statement is inadmissible unless it is witnessed by an
independent witness chosen by the accused. The accused in this case is an
illiterate, so after examining his allegations that he has been beaten by the
police and the scars on his hand, I felt that in the absence of evidence from
an independent civilian witness it would be unjust to admit the confession
statement.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>